PRACTITIONER BLOG
Read our analyses of developments in Impact Litigation and stay current on class action law
SCOTUS Rules on TransUnion v. Ramirez Class Action: "We Decide If It’s a Federal Case, Not Congress."
On the one hand, the outcome is hardly surprising. The conservative majority has once again limited access to the federal courts for consumers to challenge corporate malfeasance, erecting ever higher threshold procedural hurdles. On the other hand, the decision holds some interesting surprises, including a full-throated defense of the rights of the injured consumers by the dissenting Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. The decision is well worth a close read.
Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to SCOTUS: Don’t Rewrite Typicality
The Impact Fund and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of ourselves and twenty-four civil rights organizations. We argue that Ramirez indisputably satisfied typicality, as every class member in the case presented the same claims, were subject to the same conduct, and sought the same relief as Ramirez did. “TransUnion seeks to turn Rule 23 typicality on its head, asking the high court to rewrite the rule to protect defendants rather than absent class members,” declared Impact Fund’s Executive Director Jocelyn Larkin. “Nothing in the language or purpose of the rule supports TransUnion’s approach.”
Ninth Circuit Rules on Article III Class Action Standing in Favor of Plaintiffs in Ramirez v. TransUnion
Given the issues, I expect the defendant will be filing en banc and cert petitions. While the buzz on the case is on punitive damages, I think the Article III standing issues will be the heart of future disputes. The first piece of good news is that the facts in the case are very sympathetic for the plaintiffs, which will be helpful going forward. In brief, TransUnion incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumer credit reports for approximately 8000 individuals.